The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, May 3, 2013

Read the article in the original עבריתRead the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

In
contrast to the desert that covers most of the Middle East, the Fertile Crescent has been an area that kingdoms thrived in since the
dawn of history. The reason is simple: it was possible to maintain a
reasonable and stable community life in this area because communities
could establish an economy based on agriculture and raising herds of
animals. The children of Israel in the Land of Israel, the Phoenicians
in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Syria, the Sumerians, the Babylonians, and
the Chaldeans in Iraq, all established kingdoms with a strong and
effective central government, based on an agricultural society dwelling
in permanent communities from which it was possible to collect taxes and
enlist its sons into the ruler's army. The desert, on the other hand,
was not a place of kingdoms and regimes because its nomadic residents do
not represent a civil and economic basis upon which it is possible to
establish a permanent, central framework.The
modern era is a continuation, to a large extent, of the classic picture
of the Fertile Crescent: Lebanon, Syria and Iraq were established as
states that should have been frameworks for legitimate states with governmental
systems based on a egalitarian and shared civil society, that would
include the tribes and the many ethnic, religious, and sectarian groups
that populate the area. The objective data of the area -plentiful
precipitation, comfortable weather, flowing rivers and fertile ground -
could have provided a comfortable life for the people of these states,
if only they could have lived with each other in peace. The borders of
the states were drawn by the colonial forces that ruled in the area, and
these borders define their territories, the area of their sovereignty
and the identity of their citizens. Protection of the borders is a
prerequisite for the existence of every state in the world.But
in the past decade - and especially in the past two years - the borders
of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are continually being penetrated,
undermined, dissolved, eroded and annulled. Those who are undermining
the states are its neighboring states, organizations and individuals,
who relate to borders of states as if there is no need to respect them.
It is important to note that great sections of borders exist only on
maps, while in reality, there is no fence, wall or any real barrier that
would enable the state to protect its borders from invasion of
evildoers and prevent their entry. The
efficacy of border protection is an effective indicator of a state's
overall condition: a state that protects its borders and prevents the
entry of hostile elements is a state with the power to live and survive
even if it is situated in an unfriendly environment. On the other hand, a
state that does not succeed to protect its borders from foreign and
hostile elements penetrating into its territory is a state in the
process of deterioration that might end in its demise. The recent events
in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon fully confirm this assumption.Iraq:For
the whole duration of the twentieth century there were factors that
undermined its borders, mainly Iran of the Shah: He supported the Kurds
in the North of Iraq until 1975 and channeled weapons, equipment,
fighters and money to them via the border. This undermined the integrity
of Iraq, and ever since the Kurdish area was declared as a no-fly zone
for the Iraqi air force in 1991, the Kurds of Iraq have lived almost
totally independently. They have a parliament, government, political
parties, an army, police, communications media, mass media and independent economic
viability. From a practical point of view, the borders of Iraq do not
include today the Kurdish area that was once the northern part of the
state.The
border between Iraq and Iran has been wide open ever since the
beginning of 2004, less than a year from the day when Iraq was occupied
by the Western coalition led by President Bush. After the Iranians
understood that the Americans did not want an additional front in Iran,
they began to transfer weapons, ammunition, explosives, money and fighters into Iraq
by way of the border in order to strengthen the Shi'ite militias to the
detriment of the badly defeated Sunni militias, and so that the
Shi'ites could successfully resist with the occupation armies and
act against the influence of al-Qaida, which had established an organization called "The
Islamic State of Iraq". Thousands of fighters from the United States and
its allies were killed in Iraq with weapons and explosives that Iran
smuggled into the Land of the Two Rivers. The border between Iraq and
Saudi Arabia as well, served as a conduit for weapons, ammunition, money
and jihadists for the Sunni organizations, chiefly al-Qaida. Only in
recent years did Saudi Arabia set up a fence on the length of its
border with Iraq in order to prevent the Iraqi chaos from seeping into
its territory, but the fence did not prevent Saudi Arabia from
transferring anything that the Sunni Jihadists could think of, into Iraq. Turkey never respected its border with Iraq, and its forces would often
cross the border into Iraqi Kurdistan to attack the bases of the
"Kurdish Workers Party" (PKK), which would send its fighters into
Turkey.Syria:The
border of Iraq with Syria has served for more than ten years as a
two-way membrane. Between the years 2004 and 2011 the porous border
served as a passage for Hizb'Allah fighters who crossed from Lebanon into Iraq
by way of Syrian territory in order to support the Shi'ites. Since March
of 2011 the border has served as a passage for Shi'ites from Iraq to
support the regime in Syria, but Iraqi Sunnis also cross it freely with
their weapons and explosive material in order to help their Syrian
brothers in their struggle against the Assad regime and indirectly
against Iran, which controls Iraq. Since 2011, fighters,
weapons and equipment have also been freely transferred by the tribes of northern Jordan to
their brothers in the area of Hauran in southern Syria. And until today
almost a half million Syrian refugees have fled the Syrian inferno to
Jordan. The border between Syria and Lebanon has never been taken
seriously on either side: smuggling of goods from Lebanon to Syria has
provided livelihood for many thousands of Lebanese ever since the two
states were established in the forties, and many Syrians have crossed
the border illegally into Lebanon, fleeing the oppression of the regime,
mainly since Hafez al Asad rose to power towards the end of 1970. Many
Syrian workers have moved to Lebanon illegally via the porous borders,
and in peak years the number has been estimated at a million.Syria's
border with Turkey is not sealed either and many have crossed it
unofficially over the years: Syrian and Turkish Kurds have always
crossed it almost without restriction, just as the border between Iraq
and Turkey has served as a passage for the Kurds on both sides. In the
past two years Turkey has been sending to the Syrian rebels support and
jihadists who come from Saudi Arabia, from Qatar, from North Africa and
from other areas, even from Europe. Not in vain have the rebels
against Asad captured the border crossings in the early phase of the
rebellion, because having control of the border crossings makes it
possible for them to bring into Syria people who support them in the fighting against the regime. Lebanon:Hizb'Allah
has turned smuggling into an art form: in broad daylight as well as in
darkness, in the paved streets as well as the dirt roads, at official as
well as unofficial border crossings from Syria to Lebanon, large
amounts of missiles, light and heavy weapons and ammunition have been
transferred from Iran, China and Russia, through Syria into Lebanon, and fighters from Hizb'Allah
have crossed by way of the Lebanese-Syrian border into Syria and Iran in
order to train for their jihad against their Lebanese brothers as well
as against Israel. In the past two years Hizb'Allah fighters have
crossed with their weapons and equipment into Syria via the breached
border, in order to help Asad. In the beginning, Hizb'Allah
snipers shot demonstrators in the streets of Dara'a from the roofs,
and afterwards the Hizb'Allah people joined in the street fighting,
primarily in the streets of Homs, Hama and Damascus. The "shaheeds" of Hizb'Allah who were killed in Syria were usually
smuggled into Lebanon via the open border and were buried temporarily
and secretly in the Buqa'a valley, near the border, primarily to avoid media exposure. Lately, since
Hizb'Allah's involvement in Syria has become common knowledge, the shaheeds are brought to their families for burial.The
only border of Lebanon that looks like one is the coastline, but by any
effective test this border does not exist: On the breached shores of
Lebanon are tens of unofficial mooring places that have served for many
years in the smuggling of goods - primarily automobiles - that are
stolen in Europe to Lebanon, and are transferred by agents to the
Lebanese market and other Arab states. Since 2011 these moorings, along
with the port of Triploli, have served the Sunnis, as a transfer point
for the smuggling of weapons and ammunition to the rebels in Syria.
These weapons come mainly from Libya, from two sources: Qadhaffi's
military storehouses and surplus European and American weapons that
Qatar sent to the anti-Qadhaffi rebels in 2011. On the other hand, Alawites who live in
Lebanon - chiefly in the Jabal Mohsenquarter of Tripoli - cross the border between Lebanon and Syria illegally in order to support Asad.The
conclusions that can be drawn from all of the above is that the borders
of the Arab states in the Fertile Crescent - Iraq, Syria and
Lebanon - are increasingly losing their effectiveness, and that this
phenomenon has been increasing in the past two years, since some of the
Arab regimes have been under attack, but this time from within. When the
borders of a state are breached, its existence as a state is
undermined, and the more violated its borders become, the more its existence and its meaning are threatened.The
architecture of the fertile crescent that was bequeathed by colonialism
is changing before our eyes: Iraq is breaking up, Syria is crumbling
and Lebanon for some time has lost the pluralistic character that its
constitution was supposed to ensure. On the ruins of these countries new
bodies arise with many and varied agendas. Some have an Islamist slant,
and see the modern states as illegitimate creations that were born in
the basements of colonialism, and therefore must be totally done away
with. Some have a local slant - ethnic or tribal - and they are
interested in establishing new frameworks based on the demographic data
that colonialism tended to ignore completely. In
recent months, the battles in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have taken on an
old-new hue that these states - as long as they were effective states -
had relegated or marginalized, which is the religious hue, and the
historical conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a floats on the
surface and becomes the name of the game, or - preferably - the name of
the conflict. In Iraq, the Shi'ite government bombs the Sunni citizens
using fighter jets. In Syria the regime of Alawites, a sect that broke
off from the Shi'ites and are supported by Shi'ites, bombs its Sunni
citizens with jets and even uses chemical weapons against them. In
Lebanon the Shi'ite group threatens to take over the whole state, and
because of this threat, the state conducts itself in such a way that no
one is willing to gamble on its democratic future.The
struggles along the fertile crescent have become dirty, filthy and
bloody, while all of the traditional limitations increasingly collapse
and man becomes an unbridled predator. The forces of the governments are
not righteous, and the forces of the rebels are not pious. Both of them
murder, maim, rape and cruelly violate the rights of many victims, most of whom are not involved in active fighting.In
comparison: Israel's borders serve as an almost absolute seal against
foreign invaders, with various and sundry intentions. The border with
Egypt has been closed off and the number of infiltrators has become
negligible. The border with Jordan is well protected by right of the
joint interest of the two states. The border with Syria in the Golan
Heights survives, despite the chaos in Syria, the border with Lebanon
holds firm by right of Israel's deterrence versus Hizb'Allah, and if it
weren't for the drug smugglers, this border would be hermetically
sealed. The coastal border also is protected effectively by the Israeli
Navy, and only the border with the Gaza Strip serves as a point of
tension because of the jihadists that have taken over the Strip.In
comparison with her neighbors, the state of Israel is an island of
stability and normal life, and the borders of the state testify to this
clearly and accurately. The situation in our days gives an interesting
meaning to the passage from the poem in the weekly Torah portion
"ha'azinu" ("listen"): "When the Most High divided to the nations their
inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of
the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
(Deuteronomy 32:8).

Dr. Mordechai Kedar(Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and
Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the
Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University,
Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political
discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic
arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally
Zahav with permission from the author.

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center
for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan
University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

There’s something very strange about this alleged new Arab League
peace initiative and I find no serious addressing of these issues in the
media coverage. A step toward efforts by Arab states to move toward
proposing a possible peace with Israel is a good thing. Especially
touted is an idea, mentioned by Qatar’s representative at the Washington
meeting, to accept an agreement that small border modifications could
be made to the pre-1967 lines.

Yet there are a lot of unaddressed points that make me strongly
suspect that this is a public relations’ stunt to convince America and
Western opinion that the Arab states want peace with Israel when not all
of them do so.

And that’s one of the key questions. At the meeting with Secretary of
State John Kerry there were representatives of the Arab League,
Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the
Palestinian Authority.

But Arab League bureaucrats can’t agree on anything. Only a vote of
the Arab League’s almost two dozen members can establish an official
position. So this was not an Arab League plan at all. To represent it as
an official Arab position is, then, untrue.

Indeed, we already know that the Palestinian Authority (PA) opposes
this formula. At any rate, the United States cannot even get the PA to
negotiate with Israel and yet fantasies of comprehensive peace are
spread around by it. The mass media is cooperating in this theme,
seeking to make Kerry look good at least.

Then there is the list of countries involved. I have no difficulty in
believing that the governments of Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are
ready for a deal. Jordan has already made peace; Saudi Arabia proposed a
reasonable offer a decade ago a decade ago (before it was sharply
revised by hardliners before becoming an official Arab League position),
and Bahrain’s regime is desperately afraid of Iran and has become a
semi-satellite of the Saudis.

But what about the other three countries? Are we to believe that the
Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, the Hizballah-dominated regime in
Lebanon, and the quirky but pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood regime
in Qatar have suddenly reversed everything that they have been saying in
order to seek a compromise peace with Israel? Highly doubtful to say
the least.

In other words, the reportage ignored the interesting detail about
the three most radical regimes (Qatar’s regional policy is radical; not
its domestic policies) suddenly making a concession to Israel that had
been previously unthinkable? It’s sort of like taking for granted, say,
Joseph Stalin’s supposed embrace of capitalism or France’s rulers
proclaiming that American culture is far superior to their own.

And let’s also remember the radical forces not present. The Syrian
rebels will be holding the Arab League seat are dominated by Islamists.
Hamas itself, which governs the Gaza Strip, will refuse to abide by any
such agreement. Remember that this group represents at least one-third
of Palestinians and perhaps a plurality over Fatah, which governs the
PA. Tunisia’s Muslim Brotherhood-dominated leadership have even written
into the country’s new constitution that it can never make peace with
Israel!\.

Finally, there is a curious lack of mention over the demand,
enshrined in the previous “Arab Peace Initiative” about what is called
the “right of return.” Namely, to satisfy PA demands Israel would have
to accept the immigration of hundreds of thousands of passionately
anti-Israel Palestinians who had lived in the country 60 years ago (or
their descendants) and who have been fighting all that time to wipe
Israel off the map.

Then there are the citizens of these Arab countries—stirred up by
Islamists and radical nationalists–who would seek to overthrow them if
they believed their rulers were going to make peace with Israel. And
there has been no hint from these regimes before and no statements now
back home in Arabic to indicate any dramatic change of heart.

This supposed new plan, then, is a bluff. None of the above points
have been explained in the Western media. Suddenly, we are to believe,
for example, that the Muslim Brotherhood has turned dovish! Well, of
course, because the U.S. establishment has been arguing they were
already dovish.

That doesn’t mean it is a bad thing as a sign of the times. I believe
that the Arab states of the Persian Gulf would like to see the
Arab-Israeli conflict decline and even end. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi
Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates no longer profit from this battle.
They are frightened of Iran and revolutionary Islamists, and the Shia
Muslim challenge in general. Such governments view Israel as a positive
strategic factor given these real and big threats. You might add
Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan to the list of moderates. Iraq doesn’t
care anymore, while the Kurds in Iraq and Syria are almost pro-Israel.

And if these countries feel that saying or pretending to agree that
peace with Israel is a good thing for their image in the West that is
positive also. (Unfortunately, though, they know how easily they can get
away with double talk.)

But if you factor in the Islamist-ruled places—Egypt, the Gaza Strip,
Lebanon, Tunisia, and soon Syria—into the equation the picture looks
different. And if you add public opinion and the efforts of
revolutionary Islamists who would denounce any such deal as treason
things look totally different.

If even Saudi Arabia were to make peace with Israel what would happen
internally? There would be riots, revolts, new manifestations of the
currents represented by Usama bin Ladin, an escalated subversion from
Iran. Of course, the monarchy knows this very well.

On top of that, remember that these governments know that they cannot
depend on the United States to get them out of a jam in the face of
their rivals and enemies. Indeed, many of them believe—with real
reasons–that the Obama Administration is helping their enemies.

In other words, to speak in English in Washington to make the
Americans happy is one thing; to do things in practice is something else
entirely. This supposed initiative, then, will not go anywhere.

It is, however, interesting to compare this development with the
total refusal of Arab states to make such a gesture when Obama asked
them to do so back in 2009. Is the change due to the relative moderates’
greater fear of Islamist overthrow? Of Iran getting nuclear weapons? A
response to Obama’s reelection? Of the radical, pro-Islamist forces
trying to lull America and the West into an even deeper sleep so that
they think more Sharia states will not make for more radical regimes?

One can almost hear the radicals’ reasoning: We have to keep the
Americans at bay until we consolidate power at home and we have to keep
the Americans handing over billions of dollars to finance the
fundamental transformations we intend to make.

What it does show once again, however, is that the strategic picture
in the region has changed dramatically. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a
minor issue compared to the Islamist threat at home and from neighbors,
the Iranian threat abroad, and the Shia challenge to these predominantly
Sunni Muslim, conservative or nationalist, monarchical or dictatorial
regimes.

Here is the paradox of the situation. The very threats that make some
governments wish the conflict would go away are the same threats that
stop them from actually doing something about it.

Wednesday
brought new confirmation of the increasingly obvious fact that the U.S.
intelligence apparatus in the age of Barack Obama is woefully
unprepared to deal with the foremost threat to the safety of Americans
today: Islamic jihad terrorism.

Nor is this lack of preparedness due to a lack of funding (Lord knows
there is plenty of that for anything Obama wants to do) or other
resources. There are many people who are deeply knowledgeable in the
ideology and belief system that inspires Islamic jihad terror, and they
are ready and willing to share their knowledge with intelligence
officials – indeed, many of them did so during the Bush Administration
and the early years of the Obama Administration, before his 2011 purge
the counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad.

That purge came after hard-Left journalistic propagandist Spencer
Ackerman wrote a series of “exposes” that supposedly exposed
“Islamophobia” in government counterterror training — that is, truthful
information about Islam and jihad. See here and here
for details. Then Farhana Khera, Executive Director of an Islamic
organization called Muslim Advocates, wrote a letter on October 19, 2011
to Barack Obama’s then-Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland
Security and Counterterrorism and current CIA director John Brennan. The
letter was signed by 57 organizations, including many with ties to
Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Islamic Circle of North America
(ICNA); Islamic Relief USA; the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA);
the Muslim American Society (MAS); and the Muslim Public Affairs
Council (MPAC).

The letter demanded that Obama officials “purge all federal
government training materials of biased materials” – that is, materials
that they claimed were biased against Islam – and “implement a mandatory
re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all
federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to
biased training.”

The Obama Administration immediately complied. Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized
that same day that training materials for the FBI would be purged of
everything that Islamic supremacists deemed offensive: “I want to be
perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a
religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they
are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president,
this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will
not be tolerated.”

And so a year and a half after this purge, on Tuesday night we learned that not only the Russians, but also the Saudis warned U.S. officials about Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s jihadist leanings. The UK’s Daily Mail reported
that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sent a written warning about accused
Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security in 2012, long before pressure-cooker blasts killed
three and injured hundreds, according to a senior Saudi government
official with direct knowledge of the document. The Saudi warning, the
official told MailOnline, was separate from the multiple red flags
raised by Russian intelligence in 2011, and was based on human
intelligence developed independently in Yemen.” Moreover, “a Homeland
Security official confirmed Tuesday evening on the condition of
anonymity that the 2012 letter exists, saying he had heard of the Saudi
communication before MailOnline inquired about it.”

However, on Wednesday the Saudi Embassy in Washington denied all this.
Embassy officials did not explain, however, how the DHS official who
had confirmed the story the previous day got this false information. And
so the question of whether or not the Saudis warned the FBI about
Tamerlan Tsarnaev joins the strange story of the Saudi national who was
questioned shortly after the Boston bombing – both remain full of
unexplained anomalies. And Obama officials don’t appear to be in any
hurry to clear up those anomalies, because it is likely that the Saudis
are backtracking so as to cover up yet more evidence that the
see-no-jihad, hear-no-jihad FBI ignored warnings that their politically
correct training did not equip them to understand.

Also on Wednesday, three friends of jihad bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were arrested
for helping him dispose of material connected to the jihad bombings.
These arrests followed assurances from numerous officials that the
Tsarnaev brothers acted alone.

That made two intelligence failures in one day: the thorough
discrediting of the widely circulated claim that the bombers acted
alone, and news of a second country warning the U.S. about a jihadist at
a time when U.S. officials are not allowed to know what a jihadist is.

On Tuesday, Spencer Ackerman complained that the examination of
counterterror procedures that Obama promised during his press conference
that day was unlikely to bear fruit. He noted
that James “Clueless” Clapper, the director of national intelligence,
was overseeing that review, and “yet before the inquiry has concluded,
Clapper is satisfied — as he first said last week, before any review
even got started — that the intelligence agencies didn’t drop the ball
on Boston.”

He should be grateful for that. If the Obama Administration’s review
of the massive intelligence failures related to the Boston jihad bombing
were thorough, it would lead directly to him.

In any case, Wednesday’s revelations show the human cost of the
denial of the reality and magnitude of the jihad threat. Three people
are dead and well over 200 wounded because bumbling, ill-instructed (and
in many cases reeducated) FBI agents didn’t know how to understand or
act upon intelligence they received from Russia and (probably) Saudi
Arabia. How many more have to die before the bloody legacy of Farhana
Khera, John Brennan, Spencer Ackerman and Barack Obama is decisively
rejected?

Robert SpencerSource: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/the-human-cost-of-jihad-denial/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It is the Fatah and Hamas
leaders, and not Israel, who do not want to see reforms and democracy in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the anti-Israel spokesmen in the
U.S., Canada and Europe are not going to let facts get in their way.

Is it true that Palestinians cannot hold new elections because of Israeli security measures?

This is a claim, often made in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe,
is that the Palestinians have not been able to hold new presidential and
parliamentary elections for the past five years because of Israeli army
checkpoints in the West Bank, and that it will be impossible for the
Palestinians to hold new elections in the future so long as Israel
maintains checkpoints in various parts of the West Bank.

Another claim is that Israel is responsible for the fact that
Palestinians enjoy no democracy in their two separate entities in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip.

First, it is worth noting that such claims are often made by people
living in the West, and not by Palestinians living in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip.

These people in the West like to think they are pro-Palestinian, but
by their consistent distortion of facts, they seem in reality to be more
anti-Israeli than pro-Palestinian. They never advocate against the
repression and corruption that are actually stifling the Palestinians.
Instead, they prefer to ignore the reality on the ground and often blame
Israel for all that goes wrong in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Not surprisingly, many Palestinians seem to be much more pragmatic
and realistic than the anti-Israel spokesmen sitting in Washington, New
York and London.

The Palestinians know, for example, that were it not for the
continued power struggle between Hamas and Fatah, they would have had
free elections several years ago.

The Palestinians, moreover, know that Israeli checkpoints have
nothing to do with restricting freedom of expression and voting. They
are fully aware that the checkpoints are there to stop terror attacks
and not democracy or reforms.

In the past, despite Israeli security measures and checkpoints,
Palestinians did have free and democratic elections for the presidency
and parliament.

Israeli "occupation" did not prevent Hamas from winning the January 2006 parliamentary election.

Not only did Israel freely allow Arab residents of Jerusalem to run
and vote in that election, but for the first time ever, Israel opened
its post offices in Jerusalem so that Arab voters could cast their
ballots in the 2006 election, and permitted a number of Hamas candidates
from Jerusalem to contest the vote.

Since then, Palestinians have held different elections for various
bodies in the West Bank, including municipalities, university campuses
and professional unions.

Needless to say, these elections were all held despite the presence of Israeli checkpoints.

Israel has never stopped Palestinians from holding free elections or
implementing administrative and financial reforms, and there have never
been any complaints from Palestinians about Israeli attempts to obstruct
these elections or prevent them.

The Fatah and Hamas leaders are the only ones to blame for ongoing
divisions and rivalry in the Palestinian arena. It is these leaders, and
not Israel, who do not want to see reforms and democracy in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.

The checkpoints are there to stop suicide bombers and other
terrorists, and not to prevent anyone from running in an election or
forming a new political party.

Hamas and Fatah do not tolerate competition. When a Palestinian
religious figure, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, recently announced his
intention to run in the next presidential election, Palestinian thugs in
the city of Hebron torched his car. Palestinian Authority security
forces in the West Bank have also been harassing Tamimi supporters in a
bid to deter him from participating in the election.

Similarly, Hamas has been cracking down on Palestinian activists who
have openly been challenging the radical Islamic movement's rule in the
Gaza Strip.

It is worth reminding those people who profess love the Palestinians
that there are no Israeli checkpoints inside the Gaza Strip to foil
either Palestinian elections or democracy, and that those in the West
Bank do not foil elections or democracy, either.

But the anti-Israel spokesmen in the U.S., Canada and Europe are not
going to let facts get in their way. They seem determined to continue
spreading lies that are harmful not only to Israel, but also to
Palestinians, who want see an end to tyranny and corruption in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip.

When
the top U.S. policymakers decided that the Syrian crisis required some
international partner to deal with its challenges, the choice of the
Obama-Clinton tandem fell on Turkey. Was this choice correct? The answer
to this question is a complex one. The complexity stems from the
different dimensions of the Turkish society and politics. In short, the
U.S. treatment of Turkey as a traditional ally is right, while at the
same time American reliance on the present Turkish government's policy
with regard to Syria is wrong.

What
neither Obama, nor Hillary Clinton grasped, or most probably
deliberately ignored, was the fact that since 2003 Turkey has been ruled
by the Justice and Development Party,
which is an Islamic political organization. The long-term political
goal and dream of its leader and the current Prime Minister of Turkey,
Tayyip Erdogan, is to Islamize his country. In order to achieve such an
ambitious goal though, he needed to solve three main problems.

The
first one was to eliminate the political role of the army which since
the times of the founder of the Turkish Republic, Kemal Ataturk had
played the role of the guarantor of the secular system. This
nontraditional function of the armed forces was an important component
of the secular political model that gradually transformed Turkey into
the only Muslim country that fit many of the requirements of a
Western-style democracy. The pro-Erdogan press helped him to eliminate
this role of the army by accusing, rightly or wrongly, many of the
commanding officers of creating highly controversial anti-government
conspiracies.

The second challenge the Turkish Prime Minister was facing involved the improvement of the economy which
for many years was lagging behind. The AKP government (the Turkish
acronym for the ruling party), achieved its most stunning success by
transforming Turkey into one of the very few countries which remained
not only unaffected by the worldwide economic slowdown, but managed to
achieve a remarkable growth.

The
biggest achievement of Mr. Erdogan however, lies in the area of image
building. His political mastery manifested itself in the ability to
present himself like a leader who simultaneously is a deeply believing
Muslim and a dedicated Democrat.

The
clue to understanding such a brilliant achievement is Mr. Erdogan's
successful strategy in making use of the sharp contradiction between the
old-fashioned defenders of the political role of the army and the
majority of the large pool of educated Turks who support the seemingly
democratic trend of Erdogan's politics. At the same time, however, the
same social group doesn't want to see the transformation of their
country into an Islamic state.

As far as the Turkish policy with regard to Syria is
concerned, in 2011 it performed an abrupt about face. At the time when
the first anti-government demonstrations broke out in Syria, the
Turkish-Syrian relations were at their best since the aftermath of
WWI. Tayyip Erdogan and Bashir Assad seemed to be enjoying a friendship
at the personal level as well. In early February of 2011 both statesmen
appeared together in order to lay the foundations of the so-called "Dam
of Friendship."

During
the fall of 2011 the dam was still there, but friendship between the
two statesmen had gone. What prompted the sudden change of heart of the
Turkish leader? According to the official explanation due to the
repressive nature of the Syrian regime, thousands of Syrians crossed the
Turkish border in search of shelter and asylum. This circumstance
forced Turkey to get interested in the search for options involving
positive changes in the already badly bleeding Syria. There were, of
course, far more important and deliberately obscured reasons for the
change of the Turkish strategy in the area.

Starting
with the psychological factors, similarly to President Obama, Prime
Minister Erdogan was also firmly convinced that the downfall of the
Assad regime was imminent.

Erdogan's
pursuit of a strategy to obtain a leading role for Turkey in the
emerging Saudi-Qatari led Arab anti-Assad, anti-Shia and anti-Iranian
axis, was helped by the already existing Turkish connection with the Muslim Brotherhood.
As a country sharing a long border with Syria, all supplies to the
opponents of Assad must go through Turkey. Given that the adherence of
radical Islam represents most of the resistance to the Assad forces,
most probably the food, materials, and weaponry would end up in the
hands of the Jihadists. The Turkish Prime Minister though wasn't
disturbed by this fact because the replacement of the Assad regime by an
Islamic government friendly to Turkey and dependent in many ways on it
looked attractive to Erdogan.

The
trend of events in Syria however developed on their own and in a
completely unexpected way. In the long run it turned out that the
actions of the Turkish government with regard to Syria gradually took
the shape of a disastrous blunder which Erdogan is currently trying to
repair.

To
start with, the Syrian strategy of the Turkish Prime Minister brought
about a lot of tension in the relationship of his country with Iran and
Russia which he considered very important.

Another
devastating development took place in the aftermath of the smart order
Assad issued to his troops to evacuate the Kurdish-populated areas in
Northern Syria. As a result those areas are currently patrolled by
Kurdish paramilitary formations which are receiving a lot of weaponry
smuggled from Iraqi Kurdistan. Within the framework of the increasingly
probable scenario of the breakup of Syria, most certainly the Kurds will
try to reach if not a formal statehood, then at least the creation of
an autonomous area similar to the status of the Iraqi Kurdistan.

Last
but not least, Erdogan's policy toward Syria is extremely unpopular in
Turkey. According to the recent polls, 82% of the respondents expressed a
negative attitude toward the government's policy on Syria. Those
results reflect the belief that Erdogan's intent is to help establish an
Islamic regime in Syria.

As
far as the American attitude toward the civil war devastating Syria it
is not based on an effective strategy, but rather on two constantly
repeated mantras. The verbalization of the first one sounds like "Assad
must go!" The second one goes "Russia is responsible for the
continuation of the Syrian bloodshed!"

Without
idealizing the policies of Russia, one thing about it is certain:
Moscow does not want the creation on Syrian soil of a Jihadist state
inspired by the ideology of radical Islam. Can any member of the
Obama-Clinton-Kerry trio honestly say that he or she shares the same
goal?

Georgy
Gounev teaches the ideology and strategy of radical Islam in Southern
California within the framework of the Emeritus program. He is also the
author of The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon Foreign Policy Challenges,
Laguna Woods, CA, 2011. The book explores the international impact of
the Islamization of Europe. His website is foraff.org

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/the_turkish_role_in_the_syrian_civil_war.htmlCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel’s economic and strategic situation is surprisingly bright
right now. That’s partly due to the government’s own economic restraint
and strategic balancing act, partly due to a shift in Obama
Administration policy, and partly due to the conflicts among Israel’s
adversaries.

Let’s start with the economy. During 2012, Israel’s economy grew by
3.1 percent. While some years ago this would not be all that impressive
it is amazing given the international economic recession. The debt
burden actually fell from 79.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product to only
73.8 percent. As the debt of the United States and other countries
zooms upwards, that’s impressive, too.

Israel’s credit rating also rose at a time when America’s was
declining. Standard and Poor lifted the rating from A to A+. Two other
rating systems, Moody’s and Fitch, also increased Israel’s rating.

And that’s not all. Unemployment fell from 8.5 percent in 2009 to
either 6.8 to 6.9 percent (according to Israel’s bureau of statistics)
or 6.3 percent (according to the CIA).

In terms of U.S.-Israel relations, the visit of President Barack
Obama and Israel’s cooperation on Iran and on an attempted conciliation
with Turkey brought quick rewards. For the first time, Israel will be
allowed to purchase KC-135 aerial refueling planes, a type of equipment
that could be most useful for attacking Iranian nuclear facilities among
other things.

The same deal—which includes sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab
countries to make U.S. allies feel more secure vis-à-vis Iran—includes
V-22 Osprey planes that can switch between helicopter and plane mode.
Israel is the first foreign country to be allowed to purchase this
system. It could be used for border patrols—a bigger problem given the
decline in the stability along the Egyptian and Syrian borders—and troop
transport.

Finally, there would be more advanced radars for Israeli planes and a
new type of missile useful for knocking out enemy anti-aircraft sites,
potentially useful against Iran among other targets. In addition, an
Israeli company is now going to be making the wings for the advanced U.S. F-35 fighter planes.

The completion of the border fence with Egypt increases security in
places where Palestinian and Egyptian Islamist groups are trying to
attack. It also has reduced illegal civilian crossings to zero.
Ironically, Israel has gotten control of its border while the U.S.
government proclaims that task to be impossible for itself.

And of course there is the usual and widely varied progress on medical, agricultural, and hi-tech innovations. Here is a summary of those inventions.

The picture is even bright regarding U.S.-Israel relations, certainly
compared to the previous four years. This point is highlighted by
Wikileaks publication of a U.S. embassy dispatch of January 4, 2010, describing my article that day in the Jerusalem Post:

“[As far as Israel is concerned] what is important is that Obama and
his entourage has learned two things. One of them is that bashing Israel
is politically costly. American public opinion is very strongly
pro-Israel. Congress is as friendly to Israel as ever. For an
administration that is more conscious of its future reelection campaign
than any previous one, holding onto Jewish voters and ensuring Jewish
donations is very important….

“The other point is that the administration has seen that bashing
Israel doesn’t get it anywhere. For one thing, the current Israeli
government won’t give in easily and is very adept at protecting its
country’s interests. This administration has a great deal of trouble
being tough with anyone. If in fact the Palestinians and Arabs were
eager to make a deal and energetic about supporting other U.S. policies,
the administration might well be tempted to press for an arrangement
that largely ignored Israeli interests.

“But this is not the case. It is the Palestinians who refuse even to
come to the negotiating table — and that is unlikely to change quickly
or easily. Arab states won’t lift a finger to help the U.S. on Iran,
Iraq, or Arab-Israeli issues. So why bother?”

I think this analysis really fits the events that came to fruition in
March 2013 with Obama’s coming to Israel, signaling a change in U.S.
policy.

Face it. The obsession with the “peace process” is misplaced and
misleading. The big issue in the region is the struggle for power in the
Arabic-speaking world, Turkey, and Iran between Islamists and
non-Islamists. And, no, the Arab-Israeli conflict has very little to do
with these issues. Those who don’t understand those points cannot
possible comprehend the region. Secretary of State John Kerry may run
around the region and talk about big plans for summit conferences. But
nobody really expects anything to happen.

This is not, of course, to say that there aren’t problems. Yet what
often seems to be the world’s most slandered and reviled country is
doing quite well. Perhaps if Western states studied its policies rather
than endlessly criticized them they might gain from the experience.

The Times of Israel has the following headline this morning: “In sea change, Arab League backs land swaps in peace talks.”

A sea change is defined as a marked change or a transformation. But what we’re looking at here is nothing of the sort.

Members of the Arab League, representing seven Arab nations, met with
top US officials yesterday in Washington. The topic of discussion was
the “peace process” and ways in which the Arab nations might advance it.

After the League delegation huddled for consultations at Blair
House, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani announced
“the possibility of ’comparable,’ mutually agreed and ‘minor‘ land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” (Emphasis added)

Note that ”land swaps” are not agreed to firmly in principle. There
is a “possibility” of support for this, which means at the end of the
day they might say, “Sorry, we won’t do this after all.” After all,
only seven of 22 nations of the League were represented here.

And even if they were to agree, in any case it would be “minor,” mutually agreed upon, swaps only. Piddling. Only piddling.

Most importantly, this entire notion is predicated upon an erroneous and unacceptable concept.

Secretary of State Kerry, who seems to have staked his entire
professional (sic) reputation on succeeding with the “peace process,”
gushed:

“We’ve had a very positive, very constructive discussion over the course of the afternoon, with positive results…”

He praised the League for the “important role it is playing, and is
determined to play, in bringing about a peace in the Middle East.”

A bit of background is in order here:

The Arab League “Peace Plan” had originally been advanced by Saudi
Arabia in 2002, then was adopted by the League, and subsequently
“re-endorsed” by the League in 2007. It was, and is, a horror:

If Israel will surrender all lands acquired in 1967, and provide for a
“just” settlement of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem, based on UN
General Assembly Resolution 194— which the Arab world interprets as
giving the “refugees” “right of return,” when in fact there is no such
thing—then the Arab world will “normalize” relations with Israel. No
specification of what normalization means re: diplomatic, security, or
economic ties.

Translation: If you will surrender the Temple Mount, and the Kotel,
and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and Shilo, and much more,
including the Golan Heights. And if you will return to the 1967 line
[the Green Line], which, admittedly, was recognized by Security
Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, as not providing a
secure border. And in addition, if you will take within your borders
millions of so-called refugees, rendered radical and hostile by decades
of UNRWA influence. Then all 22 of the Arab states—and not just
“Palestine”—will have some sort of ties with you.

This was touted as a great opportunity for Israel, which would secure
“normalization” with the whole Arab world in one fell blow.

There were to be no negotiations with this plan. It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal.Israel rejected it out of hand:

Israel has legitimate rights to Judea and Samaria, based on a
heritage that is more than 3,000 years old, as well as legally binding
resolutions in the twentieth century, notably the Mandate for Palestine.

Israel will never return to the ’67 line—which, in addition to
everything else, provides insufficient strategic depth for adequate
security.

Resolution 242 says the final border of Israel must be determined by
negotiations. Agreeing to pull back without negotiations is not the way
to go.

For years now, the Palestinian Authority and its supporters have
promoted the idea that the ’67 line is Israel’s “real” border, and that
everything on the other side “belongs” to the Palestinian Arabs. It is a crock. A myth.
But unfortunately—because successive Israeli governments have not been
vigorous enough in countering this—it has become accepted thinking in
many places.

It is this myth, this crock, upon which the Arab League fashioned its “peace proposal.”

More recently, President Barack Obama has advanced proposals based on
the same myth. Has he swallowed it whole, so that he really believes
it? There is no way to be certain, although there is ample reason
to suspect so. We only know what he says.

Obama’s only deviation from the stipulation of return to the ’67 line
is the concept of “agreed-upon swaps” of land. This means the principle of the ’67 line as Israel’s legitimate border is retained
but if Israel wants to hold on to a community that, say, spreads
over two square kilometers east of the line, then ”Palestine” will be
given two square kilometers of land west of the line, inside of Israel.
In the end, Israel will be defined by an area no greater than what
rests within the ’67 line.

For the record: the ’67 line, or Green Line, was, with very minor adjustments, the 1949 armistice line.
It is the line that was drawn when Israel and Jordan stopped
fighting, at the end of the War of Independence: Israel fought that war
defensively, having been attacked by the Arab nations on the day she
declared independence. It is referred to as the “’67 line” because
Israel was behind that line until June 1967, when the Six Day war was
fought.

The armistice agreement signed between Jordan and Israel stipulated
that the line was temporary and that the permanent line would be
determined by negotiations. Actually, this stipulation was put in at
Jordan’s insistence. And, please, note that it WAS Jordan on the other
side of the line—the nation with which, it was presumed, Israel would
ultimately negotiate. There was no talk of “Palestine” or a “Palestinian
people” with whom Israel had to negotiate. Whatever existed on the
other side of the armistice line, it certainly wasn’t a Palestinian
state, or land defined as belonging to a Palestinian people.

How Israel could be required to “return” Judea and Samaria to
the Palestinian Arabs is a genuine mystery. The historical situation
has been distorted: It has morphed from the reality into what people of
a certain political bent wish it to be.

What I see is that Kerry went to these Arab League members and asked
them for some flexibility so that he might move ahead with the infernal
process. And, to his delight, they delivered. Not only delivered, but
stated themselves willing to go along with certain parameters outlined
by the president.

At a press conference, Kerry declared:

“The US and Arab League delegation here this afternoon
agreed that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would advance
security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. And that is a
common interest for the region and the whole world…”

Well, then, it’s the Arab world that sees eye-to-eye with President Obama, yes? And Israel?We can anticipate that the secretary will now turn to Israel with a
request/a veiled demand for more “flexibility,” for the sake of
stability in the Middle East. But what has been tentatively proposed is
no more acceptable to Israel than the previous formulation of the Arab
League plan, or only very minutely so. (Now, presumably, there would be
some negotiations to determine the “minor swaps.”)

The essential premises of the plan remain as unsatisfactory, and as faulty as a basis for peace, as ever.

I do not, for a moment, anticipate that Israel will agree to the
terms tentatively outlined by the Arab League. But I do anticipate a
huge amount of pressure coming down the road.

Why is the British government
keen to whitewash its funding of the Palestinian Authority's support for
terrorists, but even keener to demonstrate its opposition to any
funding of Israeli scientific projects? Douglas Carswell MP has accused
Foreign Secretary William Hague of "being under the thumb of
pro-Arabist" diplomats in the Foreign Office, but what if it is actually
the other way around?

In March 2012, British MP Douglas Carswell accused William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, of being
"under the thumb of pro-Arabist" diplomats in the Foreign Office. In
response, a furious Hague denounced Carswell as a "fantasist".

Britain has certainly worked hard over the last few years to
strengthen its relationship with the autocratic Gulf States. Prime
Minister Cameron has visited the Gulf States on a number of occasions,
taking representatives from arms trade along with him. His most recent
trip followed an outburst by the Saudi ambassador to London, who said
the Saudi kingdom was "insulted" by British parliamentary proposals for
an inquiry into relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Meanwhile, the
United Arab Emirates [UAE] Government condemned a British newspaper's
decision to publish an editorial written by an anti-regime activist from
the UAE.

Cameron and his entourage met with Saudi and UAE officials to smooth
things over and set up a number of lucrative arms deals. Cameron stated
that ensuring security for Saudi Arabia and the UAE was also "important
for our security." Further, the Conservative government recently signed a
declaration reaffirming the 1979 UK-UAE Treaty of Friendship.

Last month, the Prince of Wales toured the Gulf States. The Guardian
has reported that William Hague, the foreign secretary, and Philip
Hammond, the defence secretary, are planning their own Gulf tours.

But is it actually all about trade? Certainly, the £15bn of goods and
services exported to the Gulf each year, as well as the £1.4bn
investment the Gulf States poured into Britain in 2009, is a position
upon which the government is keen to build. Britain's support and
excuses made for other actors within the Middle East, however, clearly
go beyond economic interests.

Since Carswell accused Hague of 'Arabism,' the behavior of Britain's
ruling Conservative Party suggests that Carswell was on the right track.
Earlier this month, the British Parliament held a rare debate on "hate
incitement against Israel and the West by the Palestinian Authority."
The discussion was initiated by Gordon Henderson MP, who cited evidence
compiled by Palestinian Media Watch, which documented the Palestinian
Authority's long history of glorifying terror and promoting hatred
against Jews.

In response to the examples of Palestinian incitement that were
presented, Alistair Burt, the Under Secretary for the Foreign Office,
stated that this hate education "is not simply a cause of separation
between peoples and hatred; I am afraid that it is a symptom of it … We
deplore incitement on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Blaming Israel for the Palestinian government's glorification of suicide bombers was not quite enough; Burt added that it is important the Parliament sees Palestinian incitement "in context."

Here is the deal that exists so far: The British government provides
£86 million every year to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian
Authority pays the salaries of terrorists in Israeli jails, names
football competitions after suicide bombers, and its
government-controlled media promotes martyrdom and demonizes Jews.

While the British government is keen to whitewash its funding for the
terror-supporting Palestinian Authority, it is even keener to
demonstrate its opposition to any funding of Israeli scientific
projects.

In response to a campaign by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a
radical anti-Jewish movement which has long supported the terror group
Hamas, Burt sought to reassure the extremist group's members: "We
understand that Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories received an EU contribution
totalling 1.13 million Euros ... for Research, Development and
Technological Development. We are following up with the European
Commission to outline our concerns."

In the battle between providing funds to support and glorify
terrorists, or to a scientific research project, evidently scientific
research is considered the bigger villain.

In the 1930s, after returning from a posting to the Middle East, a
few British Foreign Office officials famously took to wearing Arab dress
as they walked around Whitehall. Today, such imitation may not be so
vividly apparent, but plenty of Conservative MPs echo the sentiment.
William Hague, for example, while in opposition in 2006, claimed that
Israel had "over-reacted" to the cross-border attacks by the Lebanese
terror group, Hezbollah. Now as the Foreign Secretary, he recently
described Israel's stance towards the Palestinian Authority as
"belligerent."

In early 2012, Conservative politician Julian Brazier blamed Israel's
policies for attacks by Taliban terrorists against British soldiers in
Afghanistan. Also, Nicholas Soames, Chairman of the Conservative Middle
East Council, condemned Britain's decision to abstain rather than vote
in favor of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General
Assembly.

The Conservative Government, moreover, seems eager eager to avoid
discussing the issue of Palestinian terrorism at all. In May 2012, the Glasgow Herald published details of a secret document,
which incriminated the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine –
General Command (PFLP-GC) in the Lockerbie bombing, and cast doubt on
the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan who was
convicted for the deadly attack. Although the document was originally
obtained from Jordan by the Crown Office, it was never shown to
Megrahi's defense team.

For months, the British government, apparently desperate to prevent
publication, threatened legal action against the newspaper. Government
lawyers had arranged for the document to be covered by Public Interest
Immunity on national security grounds. Why is it so important to protect
the Palestinian reputation?

In calling the British Foreign Minister an "Arabist," Carswell was
perhaps being a bit too generous. Support for Arab interests actually
goes all the way to the top.

Not long after Prime Minister David Cameron first entered 10 Downing
Street, he decided to resign, very publicly, as a patron of the UK's
Jewish National Fund – a position that involves no work but is designed
to illustrate Britain's high-level support for the state of Israel.
Until Cameron's refusal, every single British leader since 1901 has held
this honorary position. Although Cameron's office claimed that he had
stepped down from a number of charities, only the Jewish National Fund
was publicly named.

Meanwhile, charities accused of links to terror receive government
support. Although Islamic Relief Worldwide, for example, is designated
as a "terrorist front" by the Israeli authorities, it enjoys strong
support from the Conservative Government. The Israeli Foreign Ministry
has stated that the charity "provides support and assistance to Hamas'
infrastructure." In spite of these alleged connections to terror, in
2011, during its annual conference, the Conservative Party screened
an Islamic Relief fundraising video. In 2012, the Department for
International Development matched public donations, up to £5 million, to
Islamic Relief Worldwide's Ramadan appeal.

Douglas Carswell MP accused Foreign Secretary William Hague of
subservience to "pro-Arabist" diplomats in the Foreign office, but what
if it is actually the other way around?